[SheLion]

[SheLion]

[sgtbono2002]

I have said all along that second hand smoke was a BS issue.

[T.Smith]

In related news, second hand smoke still disgusting and obnoxious.

[Gabz]

You know and I know that Audrey knows what she is talking about.............but alas, most will just ignore it.

[chaosagent]

bookmarked

[NCLaw441]

From the article: Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
***

The bans are apparently premised on protecting smokers, but not necessarily just from health effects, but from the bothersome nature of the smoke to many people. I don't support such bans, except in public places where people don't have the choice on whether to be there or not (courthouses, city/county offices, etc.). The free market should control this behavior. If you want to smoke, go to an establishment that allows it. If you can't stand it, go to one that prohibits it.

As for "constitutional ethics" I don't know what that is. But every law is something of a tyranny of the majority over the minority. Criminal laws are addressed to a very small minority-- those who would commit crimes. I don't think this rises anywhere near a constitutional issue.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There can be little doubt that breathing second hand smoke is not good for you. Now proving just how bad maybe problematic.

[MRMEAN]

City Bans Smoking On Walking Trails
By News 8 WMTW
POSTED: 10:14 am EDT September 20, 2005
UPDATED: 10:18 am EDT September 20, 2005
PORTLAND, Maine -- State law already bans smoking in most bars and other public spaces. Now smokers in Portland are facing more limits on where they can light up.
The Portland City Council Monday voted to ban smoking on the walking trails along the city’s Eastern and Western promenades and the Back Cove.
Councilor Peter O’Donnell proposed the ban but softened it Monday with an amendment that would eliminate the fines -- which were as high as $250 -- in the original proposal.
Instead, city leaders as simply asking people to obey the new ordinance voluntarily.
O’Donnell told News 8, "I think some kind of signage -- I think at the trails and the promenade -- that would say, ‘We encourage you not to smoke in these recreational areas.’ would suffice."
He said smokers have already been hit hard enough in the wallet since Monday’s $1 increase in the state cigarette tax.

[gridlock]

The government should just step back from the tobacco industry. The government should renege on the tobacco settlements. The government should stop collecting taxes and stop placing warnings on cigarette packs. Everybody knows that smoking is hazardous. Being told this the ten thousandth time is not going to have any effect.

Let the tobacco industry try to devise a warning sufficient to protect themselves from the plaintiffs attorneys. The attorneys would sue the industry out of existance in a few short years without government protection. Why the government steps in to prevent this natural event from occuring is a mystery. Maybe it has to do with all that tax money.